State v. Petropoulos
346 S.W.3d 525
Tex.2011Background
- State sought 0.33 acres of a 3.5-acre tract on US 290 in Travis County for highway expansion; condemnation proceeded after deadlock over compensation.
- Petropoulos presented appraisal showing pre-taking value of whole tract at $630,000 ($4.13/ft2); no separate remainder post-taking value by Petropoulos.
- State’s appraiser Hornsby testified pre-taking value of whole tract $304,920, part taken $28,750, remainder post-taking $276,170, all based on $2/ft2 for whole tract.
- Petropoulos did not offer post-taking remainder value other than Hornsby’s deposition; did not prove the taking caused remainder damages.
- Trial court directed verdict on post-taking remainder value at $2/ft2 and charged only pre-taking value of the whole property to the jury, then computed damages as the difference.
- Court of Appeals affirmed; Texas Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in the jury charge by not using broad-form questions. | Petropouloses contended charge missing remainder-damages causation. | State argued charge failed to reflect proper damages measure when remainder could be undamaged. | Charge error found; jury should have addressed damages via broad-form questions. |
| Whether there was evidence the taking caused compensable remainder damages. | Petropoulos relied on Smith’s testimony about feasibility changes. | Hornsby showed no remainder value change; no compensable damages. | No evidence of compensable remainder damages; damages limited to value of taken property. |
| Whether Smith’s appraisal testimony about pre-taking value was admissible. | Smith’s method appropriate; pre-taking value relevant to damages. | Testimony lacked reliability/acceptability. | Admission of Smith’s testimony proper; not an abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Callejo v. Brazos Elec. Power Co-op., Inc., 755 S.W.2d 73 (Tex. 1988) (endorsed broad-form damages submission under Rule 277)
- Westgate, Ltd. v. State, 843 S.W.2d 448 (Tex. 1992) (damages can be measured by part taken plus remainder damages or by difference in pre-take vs post-take values)
- Uselton v. State, 499 S.W.2d 92 (Tex. 1973) (threshold causation questions not always required; however, causation must be considered)
- Dawmar Partners, Ltd. v. City of San Antonio, 267 S.W.3d 875 (Tex. 2008) (no remainder damages for diminished access absent substantial impairment)
- Schmidt v. State, 867 S.W.2d 769 (Tex. 1993) (altered exposure/traffic not compensable absent substantial impairment)
- State v. Heal, 917 S.W.2d 6 (Tex. 1996) (no compensation for diminished value without material impairment of access)
- City of Harlingen v. Estate of Sharboneau, 48 S.W.3d 177 (Tex. 2001) (highly established method for pre-taking value via comparable sales)